I haven't seen that, unless I used the polarizer filter (which is a wildcard anyway). I would expect the EyeOnePro data to be a bit "dirty" in comparison the Lino or DTP70 but I haven't seen that translate to the real world visual results you're describing. Interesting. Do you have more than one EyeOnePro to compare with? Does it pass Diagnostics?

It does pass diagnostics. Maybe I'll have to revisit that comparison (or perhaps I have an exceptionally good Spectroscan/lino or maybe a sub par Eye One Pro) but I do remember that the SS did better with rendering detail in shadows and it was enough of a difference that waiting forever to scan in a profile was preferable to getting it done faster with the Eye One Pro (of course with the SS, it doesn't involve ME in the scanning process which is nice but if the Eye One Pro did a better job, it would still be worth it). I don't have a second Eye One Pro for comparison although I will be picking up a second unit eventually (the unit I have has the UV cut... I need one without the UV cut filter for a few applications). UV to non-UV wouldn't necessarily be an even comparison... but still interesting to see the difference with a paper that doesn't have any OBAs.

Considering the EyeOne Pro scans from 100-200 samples per second (opposed to at best, 5 agonizingly slow measurements from the Lino), that it is newer technology, one certainly would hope and expect the differences to be tiny and if so, you’d expect they would be seen in areas beyond just shadows.

Considering the EyeOne Pro scans from 100-200 samples per second (opposed to at best, 5 agonizingly slow measurements from the Lino), that it is newer technology, one certainly would hope and expect the differences to be tiny and if so, you’d expect they would be seen in areas beyond just shadows.

The Eye One Pro of course spends a lot of those samples determining whether or not it's over a patch threshold or not. Looking at the quality of scans it produces compared to the SS, I can't find anything in the Eye One Pro's results that put it ahead of the SS. In terms of ∆E I find that the average ∆E on the Spectrolino is about 1/2 that of the Eye One Pro (and that's using the widest patches possible with the Eye One Pro and scanning very slowly). It may not be taking as many measurements but I would say it's taking higher quality measurements. While the average ∆E is probably not a lot to be concerned about I have noticed more false readings with the Eye One Pro (it's noisier as Scott mentioned) so sometimes I have to go back and rescan or take multiple scans and average. The SS is no speed demon, that's for sure but at the $650 bucks I paid for purple turtle it was well worth the price and I actually find it far more convenient to use than the Eye One Pro. It's time is definitely limited though. I'll probably replace it with an iSis XL or perhaps some flavor of Barbieri (Spectro Swing or Spectro LFP... having that polarizing filter can be quite useful).

The Eye One Pro of course spends a lot of those samples determining whether or not it's over a patch threshold or not. Looking at the quality of scans it produces compared to the SS, I can't find anything in the Eye One Pro's results that put it ahead of the SS.

But behind? That’s your premise isn’t it? And presumably only in shadows? It may be true, I can’t this damn SS to run and compare with the two EyeOne Pro’s I have. Or a ColorMunki for that matter. There is however, a lot more measurement data being collected and averaged, not that this guarantees better sampling (but one would hope so).

I own a Spectrolino + SS, a ColorMunki, a Discus, more than one i1Pro and other stuff. I also have access to an i1isis. I maybe have some problem because I am becoming a color management hardware collector.

I asked many times X-Rite about what hardware performs better and what they told me is that the i1Pro and the i1isis share the same type of head while the Spectrolino has a better one, shared with other more expensive instruments they make.

I also talked with some color consultants here in Italy and they told me that the best made head is the Spectrolino. They gave me some more tecnical data that I can't find now with a desciption of the materials used for both heads.

Everybody can call X-Rite and ask them directly.

I decided to send my Spcetrolino for a re-cerification.

My 2 cents: my favourite hardaware are the Discus and the SpectroScan when I have time and a sound-insulated room.

I had the same issue with the blocking of the blacks and spent countless hours, days trying to figure it out. Apparently, this is a fault of the driver from the manufacturer in my case Epson and has been acknowledged by some of the printing gurus in this forum. I also found that the Epson profiles didn't have the blocking issues that my custom profiles did and I suspected that Epson engineered them with the knowledge of the is issue. In the end I bought an old version of Imageprint and it solved all my problems. I didn't believe it until I saw it. The other factor I noticed was that saving the files as JPG caused the blocking in the blacks but saving the same file as an uncompressed TIFF resolved the a great deal of this problem. Since I got IP, I haven't made a profile.

I hope I'm not giving away any company secrets or anything, but we use SpectroScan tables with the polarizing filter for most of the matte papers that we do with our profiling service. I think that's one of the main reasons people like these profiles. There's something about the way the polarizing filter directs the light into the measurement head instead of scattering it. It draws out as much detail as you can get from the shadows. It makes no difference for glossy papers - it's primarily for matte and canvas & the like. The only drawback is a profile make from this measurement tends to be overly saturated in its soft-proofing direction (looks okay in the printing direction.)

But behind? That’s your premise isn’t it? And presumably only in shadows?

From what I've observed, yes.

Quote

It may be true, I can’t this damn SS to run and compare with the two EyeOne Pro’s I have. Or a ColorMunki for that matter. There is however, a lot more measurement data being collected and averaged, not that this guarantees better sampling (but one would hope so).

Regardless of the type of transducer being used, be it a microphone, CMOS sensor, CCD sensor, barometer, thermometer, or the sensor in a spectrophotometer, multiple measurements doesn't contribute anything to increasing the quality of the measurement itself. You can take 1000 measurements with an inferior transducer and never achieve the same quality that you can with one single reading from a higher quality transducer. This is easily demonstrated by comparing the output at ISO 1600 from a point and shoot to a $3000+ full frame camera. Averaging measurements is of course useful when profiling to attain the average value that a printer and media combination produce but I would be extremely surprised if such benefit could be ascertained from a 10mm x 10mm patch. I would think that to be useful that data would need to be sampled from different spots on the media. Printing out multiple targets for example and averaging them together would accomplish that.

The Eye One Pro might require hundreds of measurements in order to mitigate ∆E as a result of the noise inherent in the sensor itself. A less noisy sensor might not require that. We definitely know that the Eye One Pro spends a lot of time using those multiple measurements to detect the edges of a patch and it's also been demonstrated that using larger patches with the Eye One Pro, yields a lower ∆E from scan to scan. Based on how the device performs I'd say the increased samples don't contribute anything to the quality of the measurement, but rather, they are required 1) by design to detect the boundaries of a patch and 2) to smooth the noise and thus reduce ∆E from scan to scan. Those multiple sample points wouldn't improve its ability to extract shadow detail.

This doesn't in any way support that the Spectroscan/lino is better than the Eye One Pro but, I don't believe the Eye One Pro's multiple measurements do anything to improve the quality of the samples it takes. It will serve to smooth out the noise and as such reduce ∆E but I'd say that's about it. Even then, the Spectrolino's ∆E from scan to scan is about half that of the Eye One Pro.

no metter which i use or which program i use (profile maker, APS) it lacks details in the shadows of a print. just now for the Z32 i did a new profile for HM photo rag baryta.

The problem could be specific to use the "HM photo rag baryta" on the z series.This is not the first thread on this subject.I think I know what the OP is talking about. I have been through many papers and as much as I like the feel of the HM Photo Rag it gives me the worst dark tones from any paper I've printed on. By worst I mean - the darkest neutral (B&W) tones are mostly blocked, while I get beautiful details on let's say HP Prof (and ID) Satin (same image, same viewing conditions).I noticed that even with Photo Baryta preset (ink limit at 32.5) there is some minor ink pooling on the Color Calibration chart (Green and "maybe" Yellow). So I reduced the ink limit to 80% and the pooling is gone now. I re-profiled using the Color Center and compared the new profile with the canned one from HM. They are pretty much identical...Which gives me a good reason to believe that the ink limit is now optimal and there is no need to increase it. But that did not help to the dark B&W tones. They are still mostly blocked where I can see details on other papers (and in PS' softproof). The color ones are just as fine as on other glossy papers. The dark B&W tones of an image printed on HM Photo Rag baryta do not much to PS soft-proof. They do for all other papers...

MonsterBaby, What kind of target did you print to make profile for the "HM photo rag baryta"? The same with the Profile Maker and APS or different?

Sergey, as you know, profiling isn't the magic bullet that solves all our printing issues. Otherwise we'd all be a lot happier than we sound on this board! In the end, experience and a certain amount of trial and error come into play.

I, too, have had occasional printing issues with HPR Baryta on the Z3200ps that all the profiling in the world wouldn't completely resolve - mainly blocking and posterization, as well as dodgy softproofing. Now I use my best profile + my hard-earned knowledge of the paper's unique (for want of a better word) printing characteristics + custom correction curves for each image. It's not perfect, but I look at it as the dark art of printing, the thing my customers pay me for. The results, of course, are worth it, because it's such a great paper.

I'm planning on building a curve for B&W pictures with lots of dark areas. The rest looks great already.BTW, have you tried to spray you pictures on HM PRag Baryta with the Hahnemuhle Protective Spray ? It makes the surface perfect! Absolutely eliminates any signs of gloss differential.

I recently did a dozen or so large (A2) B&W prints on PR Baryta for a law-firm office: architectural shots, lots of tarmac, dark shadows etc. I gave the shadows a small bump and they came out looking superb - absolutely all the info in the files was there in the print, without looking in any way unnatural.

Never used the spray because the surface has never given me cause for complaint.

I also had problems with lost of details in dark area on HM PR Baryta - so I do not use it any more for low key image. One of the beauty of having so many papers available is that you can use specific paper for specific image.

I do not see the point in spending time, paper and ink to get something right on paper "A" if i can get it right immediately on paper "B". But for me, as a photographer that do his own printing at the end is important that picture look as I want it to look, it is not important on which paper it is printed.

Therefore I have different papers for different effects I need to make different kind of picture "sing".